Pages

Monday, 29 December 2014

‘Alien: Isolation initially struggled to win me over, but when it did,
I was completely hooked. It’s an incredible piece of work and in
many ways, it’s amazing it was made at all, given how risk-adverse
AAA games have become. Isolation certainly isn’t going to be a game
for everyone but I think a lot of people will come to adore it,
despite its imperfections.’

‘Overall, Burial at Sea, even if you’re a fan, like me, of the core
game, is simply best avoided. It adds nothing to the experience or to
the characters. If anything it ruins aspects of both Infinite and the
original Bioshock. I’ll concede it has a few nice moments (the
torture scene was very well done) but not enough to save it. With a
poorly paced and ill-conceived plot, combined with badly executed and
dull gameplay, Burial at Sea is simply not worth your time. Let it
sink to the bottom.’ (Full Review)

Wednesday, 24 December 2014

Vampire: The Masquerade –
Bloodlines is a RPG originally released back in 2004. I actually
bought it on release, but the game was plagued by various technical
issues and bugs and as a result, I never progressed very far before
giving up on the title. Years later, however, I decided to give
Bloodlines another shot, this time using an unofficial fan patch.
Despite its flaws, Bloodlines developed a strong cult following and
it’s not hard to see why.

You play as a fledgling –
a newly ‘born’ vampire. You have the choice of belonging to one
of seven vampire clans. This choice primarily determines your
appearance and certain special abilities, but can also affect how you
play and approach various missions in the game. For example, playing
as a Nosferatu vampire offers a very different gameplay experience
than playing as a Ventrue.

You can play the game in
either third or first person. Although linear in terms of story (at
least until towards the very end), you may progress and develop your
character at your own pace. You gain access to four main hub areas
(in addition to several mission specific locations) each of which
contain various side quests to discover and complete for experience.

The game has rudimentary
stealth and combat systems, both of which are tied to specific skills
and stats which you can increase by spending experience points. You
have ‘core’ stats relating to strength, dexterity and stamina,
and then sub-stats relating to specific skills such as security (lock
picking), firearms, computer (hacking) as well as various speech
related skills – seduction, intimidation and persuasion.

The story follows your
character as he or she moves through vampire society, interacting
with various factions and characters both human and not. The plot
revolves primarily around the discovery of an ancient sarcophagus
which some believe heralds the apocalypse. As a fledgling, you’re
seen as more of a tool to be used by those in power, all of whom have
their own agenda. As you play through the various missions you’ll
choose how you want to interact with these factions and who you want
to support, if you wish to support any of them at all.

Missions can generally be
completed in various ways. For example, you may use your speech
skills to talk your way past a guard, or you may sneak around back
and use a lock pick. Violence is always an option, of course, but
there are certain rules you must adhere to as a member of vampire
society. This is what they call ‘the masquerade’. The world
doesn’t know about the existence of your kind (or various other
supernatural creatures) and it’s your job to keep it that way.

I honestly couldn’t
describe the gameplay as more than ‘serviceable’ though. Stealth
and combat (whether melee or ranged), are both pretty basic, although
you do get access to a decent and varied selection of weapons. That
said, the melee combat feels lightweight and guns aren’t exactly
satisfying to use. Enemies are mostly forgettable fodder with dumb
AI.

Lock picking and hacking
are also very basic. Everything does its job, but it’s really not
why you want to keep playing Bloodlines. It’s important to note,
however, that all of these skills are tied to the stats system, so
some (such as melee combat) can feel rather useless and ineffective
until you’ve pumped some experience points into them.

And although I said you can
complete missions in various ways, that’s unfortunately not always
true. There are times when the game forces combat upon you, which
means if you’ve neglected to upgrade such skills you’ll be in for
a rough time. Even though this was my third time playing, I still
forgot to put any points in combat skills before a certain quest
early on in which you can neither talk nor sneak your way out of a
fight. I ended up using some rather cheese tactics combined with my
vampire abilities to get through it.

There’s another section
later on in the game where you’re trudging through sewers and
you’ll really be f**ked without any combat skills. The ending
missions in particular are very heavily combat focused. It’s
certainly something to keep in mind as you progress.

So Bloodlines does have
issues with certain missions in terms of not catering to varied
approaches. It’s gameplay can also feel rather clunky and dated,
especially in terms of combat. The final run of missions also feel
rushed and lazily designed, relying far too much on just throwing a
lot of bad guys at the player to fight. That said, Bloodlines is
still a great game, and this is largely down to how it handles the
story, setting and characters.

The way the game slowly
introduces and builds the world around the player is fantastic. It’s
a fascinating world to explore, full of intriguing and varied
characters and creatures. The story holds your attention as you’re
sent scurrying from one location to the next on a hunt for this
mysterious sarcophagus. Along the way you’ll meet all kinds of
great, memorable characters. Bloodlines has a fantastic cast with
excellent VA, and it gives the player a limited degree of freedom in
how you respond and interact with them.

The game is also sprinkled
with a lot of humour, either through various things in the world
(such as e-mails you can read, or radio shows you can listen to) but
also through your dialogue options. The conversations in Bloodlines
are handled brilliantly. It’s rare for conversations in RPGs to
feel so ‘natural’. In the recently released Inquisition, for
example, conversations can feel rather flat and monotonous as you
exhaust all your options and characters just rattle off long winded
monologues full of dry exposition. But in Bloodlines, dialogue is
kept snappy and to the point. They feel real, like you’re
interacting with real people who don’t have the time or patience
for your endless questions and bullshit. There’s a flow to them
that feels very natural. I really wish more RPGs would take a similar
approach to dialogue and speech interactions.

I think I’ll wrap this up
because I really don’t want to get into any more specifics and risk
spoiling things regarding Bloodlines. It’s a great game, one which
I think any fan of RPGs should play. Yes, the actual gameplay may
feel a bit dated, but once you start boosting your various skills,
things aren’t so bad and you soon grow accustomed to it.

The game holds up fairly
well graphically, offering a nice variety of locations and
environments. It has a good story, but it’s the world and
characters where Bloodlines truly excels. As far as I’m concerned,
it’s simply one of the best games ever made in regard to these
elements. I’d actually rate it better than similar titles such as
Deus Ex or System Shock 2 in those areas. It’s just a shame the
‘game’ part of Bloodlines is what lets it down a little.Recommended.

Friday, 19 December 2014

Hatred first came to my attention through a series of articles in the
games media, the majority of which, to one degree or the other,
condemned the game for literally being THE DEVIL. The trailer
apparently demonstrated an extreme/unacceptable/uncomfortable (take
your pick) level of violence based around an unpleasant premise – a
murder-spree.

I was naturally intrigued. Could a game really be so shocking? We’ve
seen such moral outrage many times throughout the history of this
medium, but to see such condemnation from the games media itself was
surprising.

So I watched the trailer. My response? I began to laugh. The trailer
opens with a hilariously terrible monologue delivered by the
growling, trench coat clad ‘antagonist’ (which is how the
developer’s refer to the player character). I wasn’t sure if this
was intended to be a joke or not, given how over the top and silly it
was.

The trailer then transitions into gameplay footage, revealing an
isometric twin stick shooter in a black and white world, where the
only other colour you’ll see in abundance is the red of the blood of your victims. This isn’t the first game to employ such a stylised
colour clash – MadWorld, released on the Wii of all platforms, had
a strikingly similar aesthetic.

You are a spree-killer on a mission to kill as many people as possible before you die - ‘Only brutality and destruction can clear this land. Only the killing spree will make you die spectacularly and go to hell.’

Charming.

Before we continue, it should be noted that we only have a minute or so of spliced together gameplay footage to base our assumptions upon. Please keep that in mind. It’s amazing how much has been written about a game of which we still know so little.

Violence

Whilst the subject matter of Hatred may be described as ‘distasteful’ to say the least, I considered the actual violence on display in the trailer to be rather tame considering the media reaction. There have been many games released which are just as violent, graphic and brutal – if not more so! – than Hatred.

This year a game was released to exceptional critical acclaim – Shadow of Mordor. When I reviewed the title I described it as ‘Orc Murder Simulator 2014’. It’s a game primarily based around a combat system which allows you to kill your opponents in an increasingly brutal and violent manner. You dismember and decapitate your foes, the camera zooming in and switching to slow motion ‘execution’ scenes. Oh, and you can also make their heads explode.

You may argue that Mordor has a context that Hatred lacks. In Mordor you butcher (and enslave) orcs, not people! I’ll talk more about context later, but for now, I just want to make the point that the violence we’ve seen thus far in Hatred, on a purely mechanical level, is no worse than one of the top selling and critically received titles of the year. If anything, it’s tame by comparison.

Virtual Things

So why is such violence acceptable against orcs, but not people? This is purely my own personal take on the matter, but to me, I see no difference. I’m not slaughtering orcs or people. I’m slaughtering virtual things. They are not orcs, nor people, in the same way they are neither ‘good’ ‘bad’ or ‘innocent’ because a collection of polygons/pixels can be none of these.

If Hatred was another zombie shooter, there would be no controversy. Likewise, if you were fighting demons (in human form) or ‘terrorists’. I’m beginning to stray into the ‘context’ discussion so I’ll try to wrap this point up. On a core level (and this applies to many games) you are not shooting ‘innocent’ people in Hatred. You are not shooting ‘people’ at all. You are shooting virtual things. Yes, this is essentially the ‘it’s not real’ argument. But I think it’s a valid point to make.

The importance of context

From what I’ve seen, Hatred, on a mechanical level, is no more violent than many other games. But as many people have pointed out, Hatred apparently lacks a context for said violence. It doesn’t appear to be satirical in the same manner as GTA or Postal 2 (a game in which you can murder someone and piss on their corpse). And whilst you can embark on a murderous spree against unarmed civilians in those titles (as you may in many others, usually of the open world variety), it’s the player’s choice to do so.

Many games use combat as a way to test and challenge the player. Hatred claims it does the same - ‘You will also run, you will need to think, you will need to hide and fight back when armored forces will come to take you down.’ Because you’re not just killing unarmed civilians in Hatred. You, perhaps in a similar manner to a GTA spree, face off against the police and ‘stronger forces’ yet to be revealed.

Many games are violent. Some needlessly so. I criticised the Tomb Raider reboot for this very reason. It was a game which I felt strayed too far into silly, over the top (not to mention tedious) shoot-outs as Lara gunned down hundreds of dudes. But the game told us that these were ‘bad’ guys, so that made it okay, right?

When I played Watch_Dogs earlier this year, the game gave me the option of preventing criminal acts – a mugging, for example. It allowed me to chase and execute the mugger without penalty. The context, one may argue, is that the mugger was ‘bad’. But does that justify murder?

As I see it, the context for committing extreme violence in many games may be described as ‘flimsy’ at best. And Hatred is not the first game to offer little to no context to said violence. DEFCON comes to mind, a game in which you murder ‘innocent’ people by the MILLIONS and you are given no context for doing so.

‘A typical game will see civilian casualties numbering in the millions (megadeaths)’. ‘Players' scores are determined according to one of three schemes: Default (gain 2 points for 1 megadeath caused, lose 1 point for 1 megadeath suffered), Survivor (gain 1 point per million survivors in your territory) or Genocide (gain 1 point for each megadeath caused)’

Nice.

But here’s the thing, Hatred does provide a context. The developer describes it as a ‘Mad journey into the Antagonist's hateful mind.’ There is a context to the violence, whether you agree that context is acceptable or not.

An artistic medium

I see video games as an artistic medium, no different to literature or film. And in many ways, I’d argue that video games can illicit a far wider range of emotional reactions given their interactive nature. But if you accept the notion that games have artistic value (to a debatable degree depending on title) then I think it’s important to be willing to accept games like Hatred. Just as a film like Boyhood can be produced alongside The Human Centipede, Hatred has a right to exist alongside titles such as the recently announced Life Is Strange.

It may not have been the developer’s intention, (who have quite happily profited by such a wave of negative publicity) to explore any meaningful themes. They may not even see their own title as having any artistic value. However, the game has enabled a fascinating debate regarding violence and context in this medium. It’s an important debate to have, and it’s important for titles like Hatred to push these boundaries.

I want games to challenge, not just on a mechanical level. I want a variety of experiences which explore and enable emotional reactions both good and bad. Hatred may turn out to be no more than a mediocre ‘shock’ game designed to sell on controversy. But so what? We’ll quickly forget it, and move on.

I know people are worried about ‘outside’ perceptions when a game like Hatred appears. Just as literature, music, comics and film before it, video games are the scapegoat of choice for sensationalist media. And a game like Hatred is like dangling a juicy steak above them. But let’s face it, when even a game like Microsoft Flight Simulator can be accused of enabling terrorism who the f**k cares what they say or think? If it’s not Hatred, it would only be something else.

‘In Britain concerns about Microsoft Flight Simulator being used as a tool to teach terrorists caused two major retailers, Virgin Megastores and Woolworths, to remove the software from their shelves.’

As I said at the start, the reaction of game media itself has surprised me. Perhaps it shouldn’t. I’ve avoided visiting such sites for many years now for various reasons I won’t go into here. Certainly people are entitled to their opinions, but some articles (written as ‘news’ pieces apparently) do little more than make snide, or flat out rude remarks about the Hatred development team or those who may wish to play the title. See this piece in particular - http://www.pcgamer.com/hatred-reinstated-on-steam-greenlight/

Is this really the direction we want for game media? To attack game developers because they disagree with their content? To deride their own audience? More disturbingly, it feels like there is a push for a smear campaign against the Hatred development team - http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/18/7417045/hatred-free-speech-and-one-developers-connections-with-polands-far

Would another developer come under such heavy scrutiny? Is it now considered acceptable to dig into the personal life of a developer? If I recall correctly, many game media sites condemned such a practice not so long ago and considered it a form of harassment.

But game media itself has come under a similar level of scrutiny recently, so perhaps this is simply the reaction. By lining up to condemn and belittle Hatred, those who developed it and those who would support it, these articles have only served to a create a situation whereby voting for Hatred on Steam Greenlight now appears to be more of a vote against such regressive attitudes as it does for the game itself.

You may accuse the game of being immature and abhorrent, but to print such tenuous connections between a developer and particular political views in an attempt to discredit them is even more so. Especially when Hatred does not seem to espouse any political viewpoint. Indeed, it revels in the fact that there is little point to it at all!

And that’s totally fine.

I don’t know if I’ll play Hatred. I will if I think it will be an interesting experience, just as I played Gone Home, The Stanley Parable, Papers, Please! or the upcoming Life Is Strange. I voted for Hatred because it’s important, whether the developers intended it to be or not. The last thing we need is a return to the ‘ban this sick filth!’ campaigns of the past, especially not one fuelled by game media itself.

Friday, 5 December 2014

Dragon Age: Origins was a great game. Dragon Age 2, on the other
hand, felt like an alpha build shat out in about 6 months. Which is a
shame, because there are elements of DA 2 I enjoyed in terms of story,
setting and characters. In some ways, I’d argue that the story of
DA 2 is more interesting than in Origins. The story of Origins kept it
simple – you are the chosen hero sent to slay the big, bad dragon.
DA 2 broke free of this rather generic fantasy plot.

Unfortunately, Inquisition chooses to play it safe, returning to a
more simple formula. You are the chosen hero, sent to slay the big,
bad guy (plus his pet dragon). It has some good moments, but on the
whole, it’s not as good as either Origins or 2. I’m going to try
to keep this review as spoiler free as I can in terms of story, but I
will get into a few specifics here and there as we go.

You custom build your character from a choice of four races, although
sadly the choice of race has little impact on the plot or character
interactions. This is something Origins did quite well, with each
choice providing not only a unique prologue chapter, but various
insights and decisions in relation to the main plot. In Inquisition,
the choice of race and background is largely cosmetic.

Your character is the Inquisitor – the hero people believe was sent
to save them from an army of invading demons. There are some
interesting moments where the game explores whether you really are
some kind of ‘chosen’ hero, or whether you were just in the wrong
place at the wrong time, but like I said, Inquisition generally plays
it safe. If you’re looking for more depth, nuance or shades of
grey, you won’t really find it here. Origins also had a darker tone
to it, a little more grit, which applied not only to the story and
characters, but also to combat. Inquisition feels far more sanitised
by comparison in all of these areas.

So you have your main Story quests and I can’t honestly say that
many of them are particularly memorable or interesting, at least in
terms of gameplay (there was one story mission which revolved more
around the political side of things, which I thought might be very
cool, but ultimately it resulted in a lot of tedious running about
searching for hidden objects). There are, however, a fantastic series
of missions about a quarter of the way into the game. Unfortunately,
these represent the high point of the story and everything which
follows feels like something of an anticlimax.

Throughout the game you’ll spend time building your organisation –
The Inquisition – into a major political and military power. But
ultimately, very little of this preparation comes into play in any
meaningful way. As a result, all of your efforts towards building the
Inquisition feels rather wasted and worthless. As you complete
missions in the game you earn ‘Power’ which represents the
strength of the Inquisition, but finishing the game with 0 Power or
200 doesn’t make the slightest difference.

For example, you gain the ability to upgrade your stronghold. I
expected these improvements to be more than simply cosmetic –
something like the upgrades to the Normandy in Mass Effect 2, perhaps
resulting in a siege battle where what upgrades you’ve chosen and
allies you’ve gained each play their part in shaping the
experience. But there’s nothing so dynamic or bold in Inquisition.
Choices, large or small, are all largely cosmetic and have little to
no impact on the story.

There’s also a serious lack of meaningful consequences to your
decisions. At one point you must decide the fate of one of your
companions. I chose an option which suggested the Inquisition would
incur certain penalties, yet this never occurred. This is a problem
with a lot of the decisions in Inquisition. I suppose it stems from
not wanting the player to feel penalised for making certain choices,
but this results in all of the decisions feeling rather pointless.
Like I said, Inquisition can feel sanitised compared to the original.
Everything is just a little too neat and tidy for the player.

Even when I had a flurry of ‘X character greatly disapproves’
messages flood my screen after a certain choice, one of those
characters then stepped up and simply agreed my decision was for the
best. It’s not possible to make the ‘wrong’ choice in
Inquisition, or even a ‘bad’ choice in terms of outcome. I really
want to see consequences for our choices both good and bad
which impact our evolving experience. And seriously, can we cut out
the ‘approval’ messages entirely? Let me know if people agree
with me by how they act or by what they say, by their expression and
tone. It’s distracting and irritating seeing this shit pop up, even
for characters who aren’t bloody present.

As for the Story missions in general, they are decent overall, but I
never felt as invested in the narrative as I would have liked,
although I think this is also due to the way the main quests are
structured, which I’ll discuss more in a moment. I should also say
that if you take the main story missions alone, there’s not
actually very many of them and they don’t last very long. Overall
though, I can’t say I didn’t enjoy the story of Inquisition, but
I was left feeling rather disappointed by it in the end.

I preferred the way the Story quests were structured in the original
game. In Origins you had 5 or so main locations each with a single
main quest. Side quests would generally all branch from this main
quest in the local area. As a result, you always felt you were
progressing through the main story as you moved from one area to the
next. But in Inquisition, main story quests are only tied to a
handful of the large, explorable zones and are mostly played out in
mission specific locations you only visit once.

This means that several of the zones play no part in advancing the
main story. As a result, working through them, though fun, feels like
a bit of a waste of time because you’re not progressing towards
your primary goal. They just feel like zones to grind quests and
experience in so you can level up for the next Story mission. For the
majority of your time, you’ll be grinding through barely (if at
all) connected side quests. These make up the bulk of the content and
they shift the player’s focus away from the main story far too
often and for far too long.

In addition to the Story quests you also have Companion quests, Side
quests, Collection quests and what I like to call ‘Chore’ quests.
Companion quests tend to vary from good to rather poor – some
companions get quite elaborate missions with multiple stages,
multiple locations and even unique, one-shot locations, whilst others
just get a shitty ‘go kill X of these’ type quests. Side quests
are equally a mixed bag but are decent in general. Then we have the
Collection quests which I actually quite liked, as they encourage
exploration of the game’s large, varied maps and can lead to lots
of cool hidden stuff.

The Chore quests are the most basic ones – go kill 10 of these, go
collect X of these type stuff with minimal dialogue or motivation.
There’s a lot of these and at times it can almost feel like
you’re playing an MMO. However, if you find this extra side content
repetitive and dull, you can easily skip most of it. In fact, there’s
so much content here you can easily complete the game beyond the
recommended level (I’m not sure if there’s a cap, but I was level
22) and not even visit a couple of the major zones. If you’re the
completionist type, there’s enough content here to keep you busy
for quite some time.

So let’s talk about the game’s zones. These are easily the best
thing about Inquisition. There are about 10 major zones in all, not
including smaller, mission specific areas. These open world zones are
massive and full of content, quests, puzzles and hidden areas.
Exploration in Inquisition is very rewarding as every area feels hand
crafted with tons of details and little touches. The variety is also
excellent as you travel from grassy fields, to mountainous areas, to
deserts, to coasts, to forests, to marshes and frosty peaks. I really
can’t fault Inquisition when it comes to environments. They’re
fantastic.

In terms of companion characters, Inquisition does a decent job, but
sadly none of them quite live up to those of the Original. There are
nine in all, not including your three advisers. If anything, I’d
actually argue there are too many and I’d have preferred six
companions – two of each class. Why? Well, because there are so
many, you’ll barely use some of them, especially those of your own
chosen class. You may argue that the number of companions is
comparable to Origins, but that’s only if you include the dog and
forget about the advisers. Origins also did a far better job of
introducing them into the game. I prefer it when companions are
recruited as you progress, their arrival tied in some way to the main
plot.

But in Inquisition, some companions, even characters I liked such as
Iron Bull or Vivienne, just feel like they’re joining you to make
up the numbers. Some of them also get very few scenes or interactions
with other characters compared to others, not to mention some rather
lame companion quests. It feels like a case of quantity over quality,
and this is sadly a criticism which you can apply to the game in
general. I’d have preferred less companions, but companions with
more purpose, more interactions and more depth.

Aside from your party companions you also have three advisers based
around military, political and spying. Each has their own little side
quest and scenes, some more than certain companion characters, in
fact. You can send these advisers onto their own missions to secure
resources, unlock new areas and build your power base. It’s a neat
little mechanic that gives you the feeling that the Inquisition is a
power influencing things beyond your own actions.

Inquisition has far more character and companion customisation than
in DA 2 and in some areas than in Origins. You have light, medium and
heavy armours, many of which can be enhanced using resources or runes
or certain upgrades. These also have a cosmetic effect in terms of
colour, although I must say I would have much preferred the cosmetic
customisation to be a separate option not tied to stats. Weapons can
also be modified in a similar fashion.

Inquisition also features a pretty decent crafting system for weapons
and armour, and recipes can be found or bought in the world. It
allows you to craft customised, stat specific items (based on what
materials you use) which you can then name. This is a great addition
but sadly a rather unnecessary one. The majority of the recipes
you’ll find are trash compared to gear you’ll pick up on your
way. Even some of the high end crafting recipes aren’t much better
than dropped gear and not really necessary when it comes to making a
difference in combat. So it’s a good system, just a little
pointless.

As I mentioned, your base of operation can also be customised but
this only really relates to cosmetic stuff like what sort of windows
or curtains your prefer. You can also upgrade your potions, tonics
and grenades but it’s not something I found really necessary
either. You’re very limited by what each character can carry in
terms of these items, so you’ll probably just stick with the one or
two you prefer and ignore the rest.

So how does Inquisition actually play? Well, it follows DA 2 in the
more ‘flashy’ type of combat. As a result, I feel it lacks the
impact and weight of Origins. It’s not bad or anything, but that
MMO feeling does creep in at times. I can’t say I particularly like
the class ability options either as they feel more restrictive than
they did in Origins. For example, in Origins I could build a dual
wield warrior with a secondary focus on ranged combat and switch
between two weapon sets on the fly. That’s in addition to the
shield focused tank or two hander DPS role. And then you have four
further class specialisations to choose from.

In Inquisition I’m either a sword and board tank or a two hand DPS.
Even if I split my skill points between trees, I’m unable to switch gear in combat. A few class specific specialisations spice things up later in the
game but it’s definitely not as extensive as the original. Playing
as a mage, I also never felt like I had the same amount of tactical
options open to me in terms of class and cross-class combos as I did
in Origins. It just feels a little more stripped back. There’s also
a strange absence of healing magic, although I can’t say it
bothered me all that much.

Inquisition has a ‘tactical’ view but it’s bloody terrible and
frustrating to use regardless of if you’re using a mouse and
keyboard or a gamepad. I totally ignored it and just stuck with
pausing the game and issuing specific commands where necessary. Your
companions have a decent enough AI in terms of using abilities and
positioning, but the companion specific tactics that you could really
dig into and customise in Origins are also totally stripped back in
Inquisition to a very limited set of ‘behaviours’. Once again, I
just didn’t bother with it, whereas in Origins I spent ages setting
up dozens of specific triggers for every character.

In general though, the mouse and keyboard controls for Inquisition
are okay and you get used to their quirks (no ‘walk’ toggle for
example? Why?). That said, I was playing as a ranged character, and I
found switching to a melee focused companion very strange and clumsy
to control. There’s no auto-attack or automatic move to target so
you have to position manually with the keys. You get used to it, but
I think if I wanted to play as a warrior or melee rogue I’d
probably play with a gamepad, although I’d then probably get
irritated by the radial menus and limited ability slots. They really
need to improve the mouse and keyboard experience.

In terms of difficulty, Inquisition isn’t very challenging, at
least not on Normal. I think I’ll bump it up for my next run.
Playing as a mage with the Knight-Enchanter specialisation though, it
feels like I pretty much broke the game towards the end as nothing
could touch me and I ended up soloing a dragon with relative ease.
Speaking of dragons, the dragon fights in this game are great and by
far the most interesting battles you’ll have, probably
because they’re a little more slow paced so you get to spend more
time managing the fight.

What else? The horses are a bit shit, but I think that’s another
issue of control. I’d probably enjoy them more with a control pad.
You also have a nice variety of mounts to choose from. As you explore
the world you’ll establish new camps and even take over entire
fortresses. It’s nice to do, but like so much of building up your
forces, rather worthless in the end. In terms of bugs, Inquisition
has a few, but nothing too terrible, although I did experience
several crashes whilst playing, but over 75 hours that’s not too
bad.

As for performance in general, Inquisition could certainly do better.
I initially ran everything on Ultra and although I could hit 60FPS in
some areas, in others it tanked to 20-30. I eventually knocked
everything down to High and got a pretty consistent 60 with that
aside from a few areas. Annoyingly, you can’t switch and experiment
with different options on the fly and have to keep quitting out the
game to test stuff. Monitoring my system, Inquisition never really
seemed to be pushing it that hard even on Ultra, so I’m not sure
what was causing the FPS drop.

Honestly though, even on High, Inquisition is a good looking game
with some nice character models, great environments and effects. It’s
just a shame some of the character animations, especially in
cut-scenes, are so damn bad. They can be very stiff and awkward and
it’s something they really need to improve. VA is of a high quality
so no complaints there, but the switch to the dialogue wheel still
bothers me. I can live with it, I just wish they’d include the
option of having the specific line attached to each dialogue choice
so I know in advance exactly what my character will say. My
other complaint, though a minor one, is not being able to save custom
heads in the character creator.

Inquisition also features a multiplayer mode, but I can’t say I was
at all interested in playing it. Plus it has f**king
micro-transactions. What the f**k? I can understand that shit in free
to play titles, but not in AAA full price releases. I’m not going
to let this knock my score of the game but they seriously need to cut
this shit out.

Wow, this has gone on for a bit, but that’s because there’s so
much packed into Inquisition it would be a shame not to try to cover
it all. A lot of this sounds more negative than positive, but you
know when I write so much about a game it’s usually because it’s
a game I like, but I just feel it has a lot of issues holding it back
from being great.

Inquisition is a good game and it feels like a real
return to form after the terrible Dragon Age 2. It has an almost
ridiculous amount of content and though a lot of it may be rather
shallow and forgettable, there’s also a lot of really great stuff
mixed in there too. No, it’s not as good as Origins, but it does do
a few things better and it’s a massive improvement over DA 2. If you
want an enjoyable RPG you can sink a ton of hours into I think you’ll
find a lot to keep you happy here.